BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD., NEW DELHI V. ACIT, CICLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 6224/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0998 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY GOYAL CITA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Question of law; Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 32

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 6222 TO 6229/DEL/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDIC IAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6222/DEL/2018 ( A .Y 2005-06) ITA NO. 6223/DEL/2018 ( A.Y 2006-07) ITA NO. 6224/DEL/2018 ( A.Y 2007-08) ITA NO. 6225/DEL/2018 ( A.Y 2008-09) BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. BSES BHAWAN, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI AAGCS3187H (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE 5(1) C. R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 6226/DEL/2018 ( A.Y 2005-06) ITA NO. 6227/DEL/2018 ( A.Y 2006-07) ITA NO. 6228/DEL/2018 ( A.Y 2007-08) ITA NO. 6229/DEL/2018 ( A.Y 2008-09) BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. BSES BHAWAN, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI AABCC8569N (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE 5(1) C. R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. AJAY VOHRA, SR. ADV, SH. ROHIT JAIN, ADV, MS. DEEPANSHREE RAO, CA & SH. VIBHU GUPTA, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. SANJAY GOYAL, CIT(A) DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE EIGHT APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSEES AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2018 PASSED BY CIT(A)-2, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. DATE OF HEARING 18.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25.03.2019 2 ITA NOS. 6222 TO 6229/DEL/2018 2. IN THIS GROUP OF 8 APPEALS, THE ISSUE IS COMMON. THEREFORE, WE ARE REPRODUCED GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 6222/DEL /2018. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN PASSING AN ORDER WHICH WAS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIO NS ISSUED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITS ORDER DATED 05.10.2015. THE ITAT WHILE DECIDING ON WHETHER ENERGY METERS W ERE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE HIGHER RATE OF 80% HAD SET ASID E THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A CLEAR DIRECTION TO VERIFY WHETHER A BREAKUP BETWEEN ELECTRONIC AND MECHANICAL METERS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND AFTER SUCH VERIFICATION TO ALL DEPRECIATION ON ELEC TRONIC/ENERGY METERS AT THE HIGHER RATE 80% AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NO T HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREBY HE PROCEEDE D TO RE- ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION ON ENERGY METERS WAS IN BLATA NT VIOLATION OF THE BINDING DECISION/FINDINGS OF THE ITAT AND THE DELHI HIGH CO URT AND WAS THEREFORE BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CORRECT IN SEEKING A REPORT FROM THE BU REAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS (BIS) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND BASED ON SUCH REPORT IN HOLDING THAT THE ENERGY METERS WERE MERELY ENERGY MEASURING DEVICES AND WERE NOT ENERGY EFFICIENT AND THEREFORE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION AS PRESCRIBED FOR ENERGY SAVING DEVICES. ITAT IN THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2015 HAS CLEARLY HEL D THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE III (PLANT AND MACHINERY) (8)( IX) OF PART A TO THE RATES OF DEPRECIATION IN THE APPENDIX TO THE I.T. RULES MET ERS FOR MEASURING ELECTRIC ENERGY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATIO N OF 80% AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY OTHER CONDITION TO BE SATISFIED IN TERMS OF BEING ENERGY EFFICIENT OR OTHERWISE. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOL DING THAT SINCE ENERGY METERS WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECI ATION, BUS BAR CHAMBERS WERE ALSO NOT ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIAT ION FOR THE SAME REASON. AGAIN THIS IS AGAINST THE CLEAR DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE ITAT IN ITS ORDER DATED 05.10.2015 WHEREBY THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER MEREL Y 3 ITA NOS. 6222 TO 6229/DEL/2018 TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER BUS BAR CHAMBERS WERE AN INTEG RAL PART OF THE ENERGY METERS AND IF SO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION AT THE HIGHE R RATE OF 80%. 3. THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL. THEREF ORE, THE FACTS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO. 6222/DEL/2018 AR E TAKEN HEREINABOVE. 4. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF D ISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY/POWER. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS O RIGINAL RETURN ON 30/10/2005 DECLARING NIL INCOME AT THE COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 ON 30/3/2007. NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 9/10/2016 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY SELECTING THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY. QUESTIONNAIRE WAS SERVED UP ON THE ASSESSEE ON 16/7/2007 ALONG WITH THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) ASKING T O SUBMIT THE REQUIRED INFORMATION BY 30/07/2007 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2007 UNDER THE NOR MAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS. NIL AFTER ADJUSTING BROUGHT FOR WARD LOSSES OF RS. 58,79,39,870/- WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED AT RS. NIL AFTER ADJUSTING BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS. 78,08,74,150/- VIDE R ECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 5/3/2010 PASSED U/S 154/143(3). THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT INCLUDED A DISALLOW ANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON ENERGY METERS OF RS.21,33,46,193/-. THE ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON ENERGY METERS WAS RESTRICTED TO 15% AS APPLICABLE TO NORMA L PLANT & MACHINERY AS AGAINST 80% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS APPLI CABLE TO ENERGY SAVING DEVICES. THE COMPANY FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A ) AGAINST THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE RELIEF ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES AND THE ASSESSED PRO FIT FOR THE YEAR WAS DETERMINED AT RS. NIL AFTER ADJUSTING BROUGHT FORWA RD LOSSES OF RS.72,32,98,559/- VIDE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER DATED 23 /05/2016 PASSED U/S 215/143(3). HOWEVER, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE DIS ALLOWANCE HELD IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION ON ENERGY METERS. THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT (A) CON FIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 4 ITA NOS. 6222 TO 6229/DEL/2018 DEPRECIATION ON ENERGY METERS. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 5/10/2015 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD BEEN SUCCESSFULLY ABL E TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS VERY MUCH ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON ENE RGY METERS @ 80%. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT (DR) THAT MORE THAN 60% OF THE COMPANYS METERS WERE MECHANICAL METERS, THE TRIBUN AL RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND AL LOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECATION @ 80% ON ELECTRONIC METERS/ENERGY METERS AFTER AFFORD ING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. FURTHER, REGARDING THE CO MPANYS CLAIM OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON BUS BAR CHAMBERS @ 80%, THE TRIBUNA L RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AS TO W HETHER IT IS AN INTRICATE/INTEGRAL PART OF METERS WITHOUT WHICH THE METER CANNOT FUNCT ION AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE IT AT ORDER WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT VIDE ORDE R DATED 14.09.2016. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF T HE TRIBUNAL BY PASSING AN ORDER DATED 31/3/2017 U/S 254/143(3) WHEREBY IT HA S BEEN HELD THAT AN ENERGY METER IS A MEASURING INSTRUMENT AND NOT AN A PPLIANCE WHICH CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS ENERGY ASSOCIATION BASED ON ENERGY CO NSUMPTION AND HENCE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE HIGHER RATE OF 80%. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY HIS PREDECESSOR ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THE CIT(A) ALSO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMP ANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IS INTER-ALIA, A DISTRIBUTION LICENSEE INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY IN THE SPECIFIED AREA OF SOUTH AND WEST DELHI IN THE NCT O F DELHI. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY RESTRICTING THE DEPRECIAT ION ON ENERGY METERS TO 25% 5 ITA NOS. 6222 TO 6229/DEL/2018 / 15% AS APPLICABLE TO NORMAL PLANT & MACHINERY A S AGAINST 80% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS APPLICABLE TO ENERGY SAVING DEVICES. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ABO VE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION ON ENERGY METERS. ON FURTHE R APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ITAT VIDE ITS CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 05.10.2015, CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT DEP RECIATION @ 80% WAS AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF SIMPLICITER ELECTRICITY/ENE RGY MEASURING METERS AND THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF SUCH METERS BEING ENERGY SAVING DEVICES. IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SUC CESSFULLY ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS VERY MUCH ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON ENERGY METERS @ 80%. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE CONTENTION RAIS ED BY THE CIT(DR) THAT MORE THAN 60% OF THE COMPANYS METERS WERE MECHANIC AL METERS, THE ITAT RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER WITH THE RESTRICTED DIRECTION TO VERIFY AND ALLOW THE CLAIMED DEPRECIAT ION @80% ONLY IN RESPECT OF ELECTRONIC METERS/ENERGY METERS AFTER AFFORDING OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. FURTHER, REGARDING THE ASSESSEES CLAI M OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON BUS BAR CHAMBERS @ 80%, THE ITAT RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MERELY VERIFY AS TO WHETHER IT IS AN INTRICATE/INTEGRAL PART OF METERS WITHOUT WHICH THE METER CANNOT FUNCTION AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME. THE AFORESAID ORDER OF TH E ITAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT VIDE ORDE R DATED 14.09.2016. IN PURSUANCE OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT, THE A SSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 254/143(3) OF THE ACT, GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, DISREGARDING THE SPECIFIC MANDATE OF THE ITAT (AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT) AN D THE BIFURCATION PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE, TRAVERSED BEYOND JURISDICTION AND PROCEEDED TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH BASED ON SOME EX-PARTE REPORT CALL ED FOR FROM THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS (BIS). IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DISREGARDING THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT (A FFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT) AND MERELY RELYING ON THE REPORT OF BIS HELD THAT A N ENERGY METER IS MERELY A MEASURING INSTRUMENT AND NOT AN APPLIANCE WHICH CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS ENERGY 6 ITA NOS. 6222 TO 6229/DEL/2018 EFFICIENT AND HENCE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATI ON AT THE HIGHER RATE OF 80%. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEED TO SUSTA IN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIS PREDECESSOR AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID ISSUE. THE SAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AFFIRME D BY THE CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL(S). THE L D. AR SUBMITTED, THAT THE SHORT ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE ITAT, IS WH ETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TRAVERSED BEYOND THE LIMITED MANDATE/DIRECTION OF T HE TRIBUNAL, AS AFFIRMED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRES H THEREBY EXCEEDING HIS JURISDICTION AND HENCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ILLEGA L AND BAD IN LAW, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ONLY REQUIRED TO VERIFY AND ALLOW DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT @ 80% I N RESPECT OF ELECTRONIC METERS/ENERGY METERS AND EXCLUDE/DENY CLAIM OF DEPR ECIATION IN RESPECT OF MECHANICAL METERS. 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE TRIBUNALS DIRECTIONS IN EARLI ER ORDER DATED 5/10/2015. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED 05.10.2015 HELD AS UNDER: 12.4 THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SPECIFICA TIONS CONTAINED IN THE ENERGY METERS INSTALLED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALS O INCLUDED THE SPECIFIC FEATURES OF TIME OF DAY HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. WE FIND THAT IN THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 AND ONWARDS SPECIFICALLY/SEPARATELY COVERS FEATURE OF TIME OF DAY UNDER ITEM III(8)(IX)- E(I). UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ESPEC IALLY IN VIEW OF ABOVE REFERRED SCHEDULE READ WITH SEC. 32 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS VERY MUCH ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON ENERGY METERS @ 8 0% AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE ABOVE SCHEDULE, THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THESE ASSET S ON THE GROUND THAT THE 7 ITA NOS. 6222 TO 6229/DEL/2018 ENERGY METERS DID NOT FACILITATE IN CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD, HOWEVER, POINTED OUT THAT MORE THAN 60 % OF THE METERS ARE MECHANICALLY ADVANCED METERS WHICH DID NOT HAVE ANY SPECIAL FEATURE. TO MEET OUT THIS OBJECTION AND ITS SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT MOST OF THE METERS ARE ENERGY SAVING METERS, T HE LEARNED AR HAS REFERRED PAGE NO. 75 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOO K I.E. COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION REFLECTING STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS I NCLUDING BIFURCATION OF EXPENSES BETWEEN NORMAL METER AND ELECTRONIC METERS . WE THUS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERI FY AND ALLOW THE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 80% ON ELECTRONIC METER S/ENERGY METERS ONLY AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E. 12.5 REGARDING THE CLAIMED HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON T HE BUS BAR CHAMBER, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE D EVICES THROUGH WHICH CONNECTION FROM OVERHEAD LINE/UNDERGROUND CABLE IS PROVIDED TO THE METERS AND THE SAID DEVICE FORMS INTEGRAL/INEXTRICABLE PAR T OF THE METERS WITHOUT WHICH THE METER CANNOT FUNCTION. THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW HAVE DENIED THE CLAIMED HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON THIS INSTRUMENT ON T HE BASIS THAT THESE ARE NOT ENERGY SAVING DEVICE. WE SET ASIDE THIS MATTER TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE ABOVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT BUS BAR CHAMBER FORMS INTEGRAL/INEXTRICABLE PART OF THE METERS WITHOUT WH ICH A METER CANNOT FUNCTION AND ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION THEREUPON ACCORDINGLY AF TER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE TH E HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT BY THE REVENUE WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 14.09.2016 DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND HELD AS UN DER: 6. AS FAR AS THE FIRST QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO RU LES OF DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED, WE NOTICE THAT THE ITAT WENT BY A PLAIN READING OF THE RULE OF CONCERNED PROVISION I.E. PART A, UNDER APPENDIX 1, CLAUSE III (8) (IX) (B)(E) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. THE REVENUE HAD URGED T HAT THE APPROPRIATE RATE 8 ITA NOS. 6222 TO 6229/DEL/2018 OF DEPRECIATION WOULD BE 25% AS AGAINST WHICH THE A SSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 80% DEPRECIATION IN VIEW OF THE RULE. 7. THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT ITAT WENT BY THE TEXT OF THE RULE ITSELF, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER INDICATION WITHIN THE STATUTE WITH RESPECT TO ITS INAPPLICABILITY, THE IM PUGNED RULING CANNOT BE FAULTED. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES ON THIS ASPECT. THUS THE TRIBUNAL CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT DEPRECIAT ION AT 80% WAS AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF SIMPLICITOR ELECTRICITY/ENERGY MEASURING METERS AND THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF SUCH METERS BEING ENERGY SAVING DEVICES. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY AB LE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS VERY MUCH ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON ENE RGY METERS @ 80%. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY GIVEN A FINDING ON D EPRECIATION ON ENERGY METERS @ 80% AS ONLY THIS MUCH HAS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHETHER IT IS INEXTRICABLE/INTEGRAL PART OF METERS WITHOUT WHICH THE METER CANNOT FUNCTION AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME. BUT INSTEAD OF VERIFYING THESE ASPECTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON THE BASIS OF BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS REPORT AND REL YING ON THE SAME HELD THAT ENERGY METER IS MERELY A MEASURING INSTRUMENT AND NOT APPLIANCES WHICH CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS ENERGY EFFICIENT AND HENCE WAS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE HIGHER RATE OF 80%. THE LD. AR HAS GIVEN PLETH ORA OF DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE O F UNION OF INDIA VS. KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. AIR 1992 SC 711 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT ORDERS OF HIGH COURT/ APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ARE BIN DING AND REVENUE INTEREST IS NO EXCUSE FOR FAILURE OF LOWER AUTHORITIES TO FOLLO W THOSE ORDERS AS THE LAW PROVIDES APPEAL PROCEDURE FOR SAFEGUARDS. THE PRINC IPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE REQUIRE THAT THE ORDERS OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUT HORITIES SHALL BE FOLLOWED UNRESERVEDLY BY THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES. THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I TS TRUE SPIRIT AND SHOULD HAVE NOT GONE BEYOND WHAT HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO BE VERIFI ED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS QUASHED AND THE APPEAL 9 ITA NOS. 6222 TO 6229/DEL/2018 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE COMMON ISSUES THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 9. IN RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH MARCH, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25/03/2019 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 10 ITA NOS. 6222 TO 6229/DEL/2018 DATE OF DICTATION 18.03.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.03.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 2 5 .03.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 2 5 .03.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 5 .03.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER